• @jg1i@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    92 years ago

    “a popular init system”? It’s the main init system now. Look at it. Systemd is the captain now.

    You’ll have to learn it if you use any mainstream distro. Like at work. It is inevitable.

    • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Yes, that’s what ‘popular’ becomes.

      Note that it’s often labeled as ‘popular’ and not ‘good’.

      I’m sick of redhat’s internal junk. It’s just to sell courses anyway.

  • darcy
    link
    fedilink
    02 years ago

    SOYSTEMD LOL 😂😂😂 (i use systemd)

  • I knew a Arch guy who called it Sys-dumb-d. He refused to run systemd.

    I could mostly care less. It’s…fine. I miss upstart and it’s simplicity. Kind of wish it had been actually developed to maturity, but here we are with an init system that also wants to do DNS.

  • @TheInsane42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -42 years ago

    It’s never been popular by anybody except RedHat, that’s how they sell courses end certifications.

    Still haven’t found a way to start something after networking has finished when it takes a bit to set everything up. (and no, not going to limit vlans, tunnels,…)

    It’s a technical ‘solution’ for a marketing problem.

    • @phx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Wouldn’t you just set “networking” as a dependency on the unit of whatever you need started after?

      • TheInsane42
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        That’s what you would do with the init scripts, as that environment waits until the previous one is finished. (ie you know you have working network) Systemd is in a hurry and there ‘after’ seems to mean ‘not before’ instead of ‘after <specified> is finished’, so after networking is started it advances to the next in line.

    • eltimablo
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Does After= not fit your use case? I was under the impression it does what you’re looking for.